We received a very thoughtful white paper from long-time Woodridge resident Russell Borgmann that explores the following questions and provides some interesting answers:

Is the Energize Eastside project necessary?

Is it legal?

Is it safe?

How much will it cost?

Why no alternate routes?

On the first question whether the project is needed, Russ notes:

“PSE says Energize Eastside is required to meet the growing energy needs of the Puget Sound Eastside over the next 30 years. However, in a private study commissioned by Bellevue (Exponent Report on City of Bellevue Electrical Reliability Study Phase 2 Report) says: “PSE has not experienced any load growth since 2008. The planned growth has therefore been shifted forward by a couple of years. The present planning criteria is for 0.5% annual growth for the immediate future and a growth rate of about 1% per year for the next 10 years…the likely result is a surplus of available electric energy”. PSE says growth is straining existing infrastructure. The City of Bellevue’s independent report contradicts PSE’s claims.”

NOTE: To build its proposed project along either of PSE’s two ill-considered, pre-selected routes, PSE does not have all the easements it will need on either route, and it will fail in trying to exercise eminent domain to get them if it cannot meet the legal criteria that (1) the use is really public; (2) the public interest requires it; and (3) the property appropriated is necessary for that purpose.

And as to placing the power lines underground, Russ again cites the independent study undertaken for the City of Bellevue:

“Overhead (OH) and Underground (UG) systems were compared in the independent study of Bellevue’s electrical supply. Number of outages are consistently LOWER with Bellevue’s Underground systems (see Figure 3, page 17). Furthermore, equipment failures produce the greatest number of outage events, followed by tree-related and wildlife-related events (pg 18). Since 2008, there has been a continuous decrease in equipment failures associated with Underground Installations.

“PSE has not presented data, however the independent Exponent report demonstrates that underground installations have increased reliability and lower ongoing maintenance costs, which in the long-term should more than offset higher installation costs. “

You will never learn any of this, of course, from Andy Wappler’s many PSE Dog & Pony Shows. There is other worthwhile information here you may not be aware of. Please read the whole thing!

I have another question:
Why everybody excepts without question that we, the consumers, should pay for this project? PSE is run buy foregn corporation for profit. I don’t see why I have to subsidize them so they can get larger profits.

No other company that caters for our needs ever asked us to subsidize their expansions. Imagine gas stations asking you to subsidize their infrastructure expansion due to increased demand for gas, or QFC or Walgreens asking you to subsidize their new stores built to meet increas in demands.

For commercial companies increase in demand means potentially more consumers, means more business and higher earnings. It’s up to a company to invest if they want to harvest this potential.

Moreover, when you invest in private company, as PSE expect us to do, you expect to participate in profits. However with PSE it’s not the case. They basically expect us to subsidize their profits while they furnish us with ugly and potentially dangerous for our seismic region monstrosities. Why people agree to participate in their ruse?

It seems that people still think that PSE is state run company and works for for service and not for profit.

Oh, and I forgot to mention another issue concerneing safety. The poles PSE wants to errect look like generic poles seen in the pictures of the 230kV lines elsewhere (googled them). However, we live in a seismic zone and I did not see the isse of these special condition mentioned. Were the any studies that allow these generic (prefabricated, by the look of them)poles to be used in the areas of higher seismic activity?